It’s a common thought repeated over and over in the American press. There seems to be agreement on it throughout the many political camps in the west. It’s also bullshit. Jihad is not an ideology. It is not based on a system of ideas or ideals.
Jihad is holy war, fought by Muslims against people who are not Muslims. The goal is the extermination or conversion of non-Muslims. It’s really quite a simple thing with many historical precedents that’s not possible to be ignorant of unless you’re wholly ignorant of the history of all Muslim civilizations.
My suspicion about the widespread tendency to declare jihad an ‘ideology’ ahistorically is because it means that it can be addressed as an ideology is addressed under democracy: with debate and discussion. You can’t debate with jihad. You could not debate the Mughal Empire when they came knocking at the city gates.
You either fight the invader, you submit to him, or you die.
If you’re an over-educated idiot, you can contort the meaning of ‘jihad’ to mean something like ‘inner struggle for holiness.’ This turns great figures in Muslim history like Saladin into chopped liver. You’re going to be deeply fucking confused if you think Saladin was motivated by some complicated ideology, as if that’s the only way to motivate armies to conquer territory faced with daunting odds. They didn’t even have enough paper to go around back then to even construct an ideology.
The easiest way to understand something like the Islamic State is to put it in the broader context of Islamic history. In which case it is readily understandable, and is how they understand themselves. The same assholes who are continually lecturing at us to think outside of European frameworks are the same assholes who are completely incapable of thinking outside the narrow framework of modern analysis.
It’s all really goddamned simplistic. They’re coming to kill all the unbelievers. You either kill them, you convert, or they kill you. It’s like trying to make football something that’s not about scoring more touchdowns than the other guy. You either kill them until there are no more of them, or until they stop fighting.
It would please me greatly to see people stop referring to jihad or terrorism as the expression of an ideology, because it over-complicates what is really a simple phenomenon. Economy of thought is underrated: you want to minimize the ratio between talk and action whenever possible, because both time and space are scarce.
These guys are rejects. A young man from a Muslim country probably has it even worse than we do here- they’ve got the more retarded versions of socialism plus polygamy plus constant Western interference in their countries.
They should be a clue to the West to start doing something about family formation and getting people into some sort of productive life or else we’ll have some non-Islamic version of this mess over here, probably soon after corporations replace most of their workers with robots and self-checkout kiosks.
The only reason these guys were able to establish a base in Syria is because the U.S. government keeps funding rebels in Syria.
Most of their so-called territory is empty desert. Look at Ar Raqqah to Mosul on a map. These guys are destined to fail from a strategic perspective. Meanwhile, someone is going to make more money and/or increase their power by scaring Americans.
“These guys are destined to fail from a strategic perspective.”
What wishful thinking.
“These guys are rejects. A young man from a Muslim country probably has it even worse than we do here- they’ve got the more retarded versions of socialism plus polygamy plus constant Western interference in their countries.”
Killing people and taking their valuable assets is a great way to go from reject to multimillionaire warlord over a short period of time.
“They’ve got the more retarded versions of socialism plus polygamy plus constant Western interference in their countries.”
More or less. But there is a big log in your eye that you ought to pick out. Polygamy may be baleful, but the sexual revolution is much worse when judged on that metric.
“The only reason these guys were able to establish a base in Syria is because the U.S. government keeps funding rebels in Syria.”
Yes.
“They should be a clue to the West to start doing something about family formation and getting people into some sort of productive life or else we’ll have some non-Islamic version of this mess over here, probably soon after corporations replace most of their workers with robots and self-checkout kiosks.”
Do you people ever get bored of this line? I’m bored of it. You should hope with all your heart that the West holds its shit together long enough to even come close to this technological goal.
Further, guy, you are the West. Our leadership is crazy and corrupt, which is why it must be replaced. Hoping that the leadership will spontaneously reform is more wishful thinking.
‘Inner struggle for holiness’ is the definition of neo-Calvinist PC. As in old-fashioned Calvinism, the elect who are getting on well with their inner struggle tend to demonstrate their holiness through outer success. Thus far, neo-Calvinists are not that much affected by imputing their own motives to murderous jihadis. The bastards.
Who is ‘you people?’ I do not think I am among those people, because those people probably don’t find themselves in general agreement with the things you have written on your blog. Overvaluing ISIS as a threat benefits our crazy and corrupt leadership. There’s a game being played here, and ISIS, with it’s ridiculously long supply lines through a freaking desert, are just pawns. They certainly would like to be a great threat, but that’s where the wishful thinking is.
I am actually trying to figure out how defensible Kurdistan is, meanwhile, because I think it very likely Israeli/Gaza style defenses will be put up wherever it is plausible they will work. Creating hardened enclaves might be lucrative- the oil companies will pay to keep their assets protected. The problem is our leadership is crazy enough to try and free Kurdistan and give Baghdad weapons at the same time…
‘You people’ referring to everyone who continually uses this tired line on automation. The annoyance not being directed at you in particular but at the frequency with which I read this line of argument uncritically repeated.
“I am actually trying to figure out how defensible Kurdistan is, meanwhile, because I think it very likely Israeli/Gaza style defenses will be put up wherever it is plausible they will work. Creating hardened enclaves might be lucrative- the oil companies will pay to keep their assets protected. The problem is our leadership is crazy enough to try and free Kurdistan and give Baghdad weapons at the same time…”
What gives you this notion? If they had a free hand, they could probably defend themselves. With the laws the way that they are, they are tied down, defenseless, and reliant on the Iraqi army… especially following the expulsion of foreign mercenaries.
Part of the reason why they’ve had such an easy time advancing is because those sorts of arrangements have been made illegal.
My notion comes from pondering this endless military action and it’s general tendency to just make everything worse. Stated goals aren’t achieve- ISIS is achieved instead. So what are the real goals? Constant low level warfare? Israeli politicians can use their low grade conflict- and make it hot whenever they want- mainly to control their own population and their own election cycles. Then there are the defense industry jobs created surrounding building walls, drones, and other forms of defensive security.
It works in Gaza, they’ve trotted this stuff out at high profile games (Brazil). What’s going to happen in America, after we figure out these precious little children from Latin America are really young recruits for the drug cartels? Various systems are available and conceivably they could even work in Ferguson.
The Kurds figured out they needed to court nations and multinationals or else their shot for independence (and survival) would be gone. This would freedom Israeli style- an ethnic socialist nation surrounded by potential enemies, which I don’t think actually is freedom, but it does beat being a Palestinian.
The real goals are the impossible stated goal of turning the Middle East into a group of stable, multicultural, democratic states with secular governments.
There are some side goals of getting along with the American allies in the region. But do not underestimate that how much of what is said is what is desired.
The Kurds were useful for a time for the US. Now, the US approach is so incoherent and shifty that their place is no longer secure.
It would be wonderful if there was a secret goal and if everything was under control. There isn’t. DC wants gay marriage, universal suffrage, and feminism for Arabs. They really are that feckless and weird.
Right on!
They’ve come to call it ‘jihadism’ as if it’s something outside of completely mainstream Islamic history and interpretation.
A simple call to war for booty and glory is enough. The proof of this simple assertion is seen in thousands of young men joining the Islamic State from countries such as India, Tunisia, Pakistan, Britain etc. Western proggism is a soggy dead fish rejected.
Yes. The entire narrative concocted about this culture has been bizarre from the beginning.
Standing ovation.
Also, said with the right amount of “fire in the belly”.
Once again, outstanding.
I have problems with Islam.
I cannot accept a world view which defines women as half the value of men.
I cannot accept an ideology as an ideology if it has a concept – taqiyya – to lie to outsiders about anything for political advantage. A propaganda, yes; an ideology,no. I once heard an Ayatollah claim that word “Infidel” doesn’t occur in the Koran. OK. but the arabic word “Kafir” sure as shooting does. Open inquiry my pretty floral bonnet!
I cannot accept a religion which says Christians must submit to humiliation, convert, or die. And all others must convert or die.
[Jews used to be allowed the Christian option as “people of the book.” Doesn’t seem to happen any more.]
I cannot accept an outlook where the supposed intellectuals – they who have a book – seek to destroy history from before their prophet. The Tomb of Jonah, the Monumental Buddhas.
I cannot accept a law code that sentences all women up to the age of 54 to clitorectomy. [Why, for God’s sake 54?] Just last month ISIS did this..
I cannot accept supposed learned men who call Alexandria by the name of “the Iskandria” because they think the “Al” part was an article.
I cannot accept a society so closed that it sentences writers to death for referring to well known legends in the presence of foreigners.
I cannot accept as the infallible “Word of God” literature dictated by a fallible angel, to a fallible illiterate man [See the Satanic Verses] who had no secretary but declaimed the verses to a crowd which did not write them down. The verses of which were not written down until after a battle where many of the witnesses were killed. And where they were put down in no rational order, but rather in the order of longest to shortest chapters. And where all copies of this book were recalled once or twice to be re-edited and re-released. Where the outlawing of translation condemns the mass of followers to not being able to read their putative beliefs.
DAB
http://delphimt.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/the-treason-of-kipling/